Dear fellow-listmembers,

Jeliko's departure on Monday means I'll have to send this thought in a
half-baked state, but then we've seen some undercooked material on the
list from time to time, haven't we ;-)?

What I wanted to say that was prompted by part of the recent exchanges
between Jeliko and Eva Balogh was that, unfortunately, the question of
how Hungary would have developed had Rakoczi won the war of independence
is not really a question for history at all.  At least, I always thought
that indulging in "if-history" (the technical term among sci-fi buffs is
"allohistory" and it's an honorable sub-genre in that field) was something
we only did for amusement or (at some personal risk) to make a point in
teaching or something like that.  That's why I said my speculation on the
possibilities of developing a genuine, supra- or non-national "Austrian"
patriotism that might have developed into a kind of identity other than
the national identities of the Habsburg-ruled peoples would get me into
trouble, since it was precisely the kind of "if-history" speculation that
I wanted to say was not the business of history.

I do have some thoughts on other aspects of the discussion -- I hope that
both Eva and Jeliko can keep it a discussion -- but I'll do them later,
they're too complicated for me to cope with them at this hour.

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

In article >, Zoltan Szekely
> writes:

>1. The suicide quote from Father Kennedy was not aired on TV. I did not
>   comment this quote at all. (I was not compelled to do it.) The source,
>   a book by Father Kennedy, was given together with the quote.
>2. The television program I was talking about had a different topic:
teaching
>   oral sex to teenage girls in school facilities without the knowledge
of
>   their parents. Father Kennedy's report was supported by video
recording.
>
>If there is any interest regarding Father Kennedy's mailing/email address
>I would be more than happy to provide with it. He offers cassette and
video
>recordings as well about his sermons/tv-programs. (You may ask them by
the
>topic.)
>                                                                  Sz.
Zoli
>
>
Why don't you go ahead and pass that address along? I'll see what I can
find out about Father Kennedy (anyone know what his first name might be?).
Since you won't provide accurate sourcing for these claims, I might as
well see what I can dig up.
Sam Stowe


"Up next on NBC Nightly News, they're highly
prized by both parties -- soccer moms. Who are
they? And what do they want?"
-- NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw, Oct.
15, making an ill-considered attempt to practice
relevant journalism.

In article >, 
says...
>
>>15 October 1956
>
>>Where were you on that day?
>>
>>
> Budapest.
>
>Regards,Jeliko.

I was also in Budapest, but don't remember what I did - however, I
remember crystal clear what I did on the night of October 23.
Regards, Agnes

In article >, 
says...
>
>Any guesses would be appreciated.
>Was there a town in Hungary called "Oyhell"  (phonetic spelling)
>between the years 1867 and 1890?  If so, what is the correct spelling?
>Closest city?
>
>
>
>Thanks
>Lynn Mandel
>Lynn

>http://pathfinder.com/twep/mysterious_press/hall
>
I believe, you are speaking of Ujhely.  A part of Greater Budapest was
called Obuda-Ujhely.

Regards, Agnes

In article >, 
says...
>The idea goes back to the Ancient Times. The Assyrian army
>was famous about its cruelty against the conquered. The
>Bible has passages about heaps of dead men in front of the
>city gates after Shalmanazer's conquests. And the survivors
>were tortured and deported all over the ancient world.
>
>Probably the Babylonian army was not very much different
>either. Because of its significant appearance the Jews even
>had to deal with some special problems after coming back to
>Judea from the Babylonian exile. In their collection of Laws,
>i.e. in the Deutoronomy Book, for example, we find instructions
>about how to handle the cases of men whose specific body part
>was cut off. (Shout up, Lorena Bobbit! :-(((( )
>                                                     Sz. Zoli

Er, right, it is true that weird and horrible ways of torturing people
have been around since time immemorial. AVO torture of innocent civilians
was mind numbingly dreadful, but as far as human history goes, there was
nothing new in any of that. Before the advent of the glass rod, devices
found in nature were no doubt used (like thorny branches, needle like
plants, etc) to attack the male genitalia and, perhaps, flick their
eyeballs out, too, for good measure. Prevalent throughout history up
to modern times is the simple business of hanging the victim by his
feet, cutting off the genitalia (including testicles) and stuffing the
lot into the victim's mouth: agonizing death slowly ensuing by either
loss of blood or asphyxiation. This has been normal practice in Central
America and East Timor (amongst other places) lately. Serbs Chetniks in
Bosnia sometimes made prisoners bite off anothers' private parts and,
of course, it was normal for Serbs to simply slice off the penis of
many a Moslem boy (identified by being circumcised, echoes of the infamous
Nazi *trouser test*) they came across and to gang rape girls (reportedly
as young as six years old) until the victim split. Sewing needle and thread
was usually the only available ad hoc surgery if the victim was found in
time by sane adults. According to the little I know on this subject, the
Japanese take the gold medal in all this; in China this century (never mind
Korea, etc) one favourite Jap trick (by ordinary soldiers) was to force
people to skin members of their own family alive...the merciful way was to
be quick and cut a vital blood vessel, or two, in the process. The Americans
were much too kind on the Japs with their fire bombings and just a couple
of atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki!!!

--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy ** Commodore=64...ICPUG ** NW London CC

> My guess was Becsujhely, which was perhaps (relatively) bigger then?!
But that is present day Wienerneunstadt, which is in Austria. Not
Hungary. I would guess Pestujhely as more likely. Then of course, we
who were born and raised in Budapest are rather *Pestcentric* :-))

Eva Kende B.Sc. author of "Eva's Hungarian Kitchen".

In article >,  says...
>
>In article >, 
>says...
>>
>>Any guesses would be appreciated.
>>Was there a town in Hungary called "Oyhell"  (phonetic spelling)
>>between the years 1867 and 1890?  If so, what is the correct spelling?
>>Closest city?
>>
>>
>>
>>Thanks
>>Lynn Mandel
>>Lynn

>>http://pathfinder.com/twep/mysterious_press/hall
>>
>.I wish I could delete what I have sent you a couple of hours ago.  It
is Obuda-Ujlak.  And Ujhely is a resort place on Lake Balaton.  I am very
sorry, and could crawl under the earth of shame.

>Regards, Agnes
>

Andras Kornai writes:

> Much as I agree with the sentiment expressed by Ga1bor Fencsik that
> "importing words for imported concepts is perfectly normal", I find his
> summary dismissal of the Hungarian language renewal movement completely
> ahistoric.

It would be a cheap shot to remind Andras of his claim a few months ago
that "History is Bunk".  So I won't do that.  Also, I did not mean to
dismiss the language renewal movement -- it would be extremely awkward to
try to speak Hungarian today without using the words they invented.

> Like it or not, in the 19th century everything that was emotionally
> stirring, morally uplifting, politically forward-looking, theoretically
> reasonable, and practically doable, was predicated on the twin pillars of
> "Haza e1s Halada1s" [Homeland and Progress]. In particular, the linguistic
> theory of the period was only dimly aware of pidgins, creoles, and trade
> languages, and viewed borrowings as a sure sign of cultural inferiority.
> Contact between cultures and languages was perceived through the romantic
> model of armed conquerors imposing their language.

I have no doubt the movers and shakers in the language renewal movement had
only the purest intentions.  Their fears were entirely real, even if, in
hindsight, they were unfounded.  But intentions -- pure or impure -- are
not what is at issue here.  Eva Balogh brought up the lamentable state of
early 19th century Hungarian as additional proof of Hungary's backwardness
at the start of the modern era.  Behind this lie a number of assumptions,
each highly debatable: that there is such a thing as a "backward" language;
that the backwardness of the language is correlated with technological,
social, political, and economic backwardness; that Hungarian was a backward
language 180 years ago; and that there existed things, thoughts, and ideas
that were not expressible in the language of the era.  These are more than
subjective assertions and perceived needs: they are testable hypotheses.

>> "Zongora" is not an improvement over "fortepiano" by any stretch of the
>> imagination.
> Pekulia1ris muzika1lis instrumentum, lakrima1l, hneka1l, e1s vibra1l.

Touche'.  On the other hand, a few lines after this one Ady decides to
write "ez az elet melodiaja", even though a perfectly good and authentically
Hungarian substitute exists from the era of the language renewal: "ez az
elet dallama".  I don't think it matters a great deal, poetically speaking,
where words come from -- for the poet, the more words the better.

Anyway, I have nothing against "zongora".  It is a perfectly beautiful word,
it scans well, and it feels right.  It is also a complete fantasy word, with
a faint echo of the verb "zeng" in the imaginary root, and an imaginary
productive suffix tacked on.  Given that it was simply dreamed up one day by
someone whose identity is probably known, the question is what made it into
a Hungarian word the day it was invented?  On that day, was it already "more
Hungarian" than the word "fortepiano"?  It was a simulacrum of a Hungarian
word that "took", and thereby became part of the language -- exactly as an
imported word would, after a few decades of adaptation and use.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

> wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Peter I. Hidas wrote:
>> At 3:07 PM 10/16/96, L & P Hall wrote:
>> >Was there a town in Hungary called "Oyhell"  (phonetic spelling)
>> Ujhely, short for Satoraljaujhely (maybe)
 >My guess was Becsujhely, which was perhaps (relatively) bigger then?!

What about the one-time Ujhely, today Novo Mesto (Slovenia)??


Paolo Agostini >
Padova, Italy

Please visit Kinga's Cool Hungarian Homepage.  We have 100's of links
related to Hungary, with new ones being added all of the time.
We are designing this site with the goal that it will become a central
repository of Hungarian-related links.

Please send me your suggestions or new links so I can make the site
even better.

Sincerely,
Kinga

http://users.deltanet.com/~kingavp

At 12:34 AM 10/18/96 PDT, Gabor Fencsik wrote:

>Eva Balogh brought up the lamentable state of
>early 19th century Hungarian as additional proof of Hungary's backwardness
>at the start of the modern era.  Behind this lie a number of assumptions,
>each highly debatable: that there is such a thing as a "backward" language;
>that the backwardness of the language is correlated with technological,
>social, political, and economic backwardness; that Hungarian was a backward
>language 180 years ago; and that there existed things, thoughts, and ideas
>that were not expressible in the language of the era.  These are more than
>subjective assertions and perceived needs: they are testable hypotheses.

        Let me repeat it. The language reformers had three goals in mind:
make the language modern enough to express modern philosophical es technical
concepts; make the language capable of catering to a new literary style;
and, Magyarize the vocabulary. Gabor doesn't believe there might be
differences between languages. But, why not? Surely, the language of some
Indian tribe living in the jungles of South America can't possibly have the
vocabulary and expressiveness of, let's say English or Hungarian. Gabor, on
the whole, doesn't like to admit differences of this sort. I remember how he
doubted that some societies might not have been "ready for democracy" at one
point of their history. It is simply a trick by which some people can
deprive others from the benefits of democracy, thought Gabor. But it is
enough to look at some of the emerging countries and see their failures in
establishing democracy. And I don't think that it is so only because they
have nasty politicians with evil intentions. And as for language. It is a
commonplace that certain languages lend themselves better to expressing
abstract ideas. We always think of German as the language of philosophy. Our
only "philosopher," Gyorgy Lukacs didn't write in Hungarian; he wrote in
German. It is also a commonplace that English has a huge vocabulary, larger
than most other languages.

        I am not sure whether one can assess for sure all the benefits of
the language reform in some substantial way. But one thing is sure:
Hungarian literature blossomed in the 19th century as opposed to the 18th.
Surely, this flowering of Hungarian literature wasn't only the result of the
language reform but rather it was the kind of material and intellectual
development which began to be felt with the arrival of the Enlightenment and
the Industrial Revolution.

        Eva Balogh

At 01:14 AM 10/18/96 EDT, Hugh Agnew wrote:

>What I wanted to say that was prompted by part of the recent exchanges
>between Jeliko and Eva Balogh was that, unfortunately, the question of
>how Hungary would have developed had Rakoczi won the war of independence
>is not really a question for history at all.

        Quite! Although the discussion started along these lines, it has
changed course considerably shortly afterward. It is obvious that it is
"underdevelopment," "backwardness," "lagging behind Western Europe" which is
at the core of our disagreement. Whether it is the date of the establishment
of the royal chancellery, the true beginnings of "literacy," the numbers of
carpenters in Tihany in the middle of 11th century, or the state of the
Hungarian language and literature at the end of the 18th, we are still
talking about underdevelopment which seems to be so troubling to some people.

        But in addition to that historical discussion Jeliko and I touched
on the role of the historian. Jeliko seems to deny that historians have
special skills in analyzing the past. I disagree. Jeliko wants to sidestep
secondary sources and "go to the original documents." Again, the discipline
of history (in the sense of writing history) wouldn't be what it is if
historians didn't conduct a dialogue about history. And that can be done
only through the writings of historians. And one more thing: the role of
historians is exceedingly important--they are the transmitters of a nation's
past to those living in the present. And our outlook today is greatly
influenced by the way we perceive the past. It is quite obvious from our
discussions that Jeliko and I learned Hungarian history from very different
historians.

        Eva Balogh

I would like to thank all of you for your responses. I have a much
better idea  of where to start my search for my ancestral town.

Lynn Mandel



Lynn

http://pathfinder.com/twep/mysterious_press/hall

18 October 1956

Albert Konya, Minister of Education, informs Imre Nagy that he is being
reinstate as a university professor.

The Presidium (Elnoki Tanacs) postpones the recalling of parliament.
Parliament is ordered to reconvene on 29 October instead of 22 October.

Isvan Dobi and Zoltan Tildy visit Stalinvaros. The town council requests
the changing of the name of their town.

High school students have their own "parliament" debating the affairs of
the country.

The central organ of the DISZ (Young Students' Union) accepts the proposal
of the university students of Budapest, Debrecen and Szeged demanding the
abolition of the compulsory Russian instructions at their respective
institutions.

Do you remember?

Peter Hidas writes:  (parts deleted)

>18 October 1956
>
>Albert Konya, Minister of Education, informs Imre Nagy that he is being
>reinstate as a university professor.

This was sort of a formality. At the Marx Karoly Kozgazdasagtudomanyi
Egyetem, his name was on an office door and he was listed as a professor
even earlier, or never removed.

Regards,Jeliko.

Dr. D. James Kennedy is the pastor of the
Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
If you want to know more about this church,
visit Coral Ridge Ministries online at:

http://www.cr-online.com/

or at:

http://www.cr-online.com/djk/djkhome.htm
                                                 (Sz. Zoli)

Eva Balogh writes:
>At 01:58 PM 10/17/96 -0400, Jeliko wrote:
>
>>While preparing the "What's in a name list" I looked at the end of this
>>document from
>>1138 and at the end of the document it states: "A kancellar, aki ezt a
>>privilegiumot a kiralyi pecsettel megerositette Woth fia Janos volt;" (The
>>chancellor, who validated this privilage (document) by placing on it the
>>royal seal was the son of Woth, Janos.)
>>
>>Now there are several possibilities. There were chancellors before 1200,
>>without an office of the chancellary (freelance). There were chancellors
>>just floating about and when one was needed, the king hollered, bring me a
>>chancellor. The kind reader can probably surmise other possibilities.
>>Howwever, it is also possible that Pal Engel was just plain wrong, or wrote
>>the statement in a misleading manner or his work is cited in a misleading
>>manner.
>
>        This is becoming ridiculous, Jeliko, because *you* are becoming
>"plain wrong." This is a very simple proposition: the royal chancellery was
>established at the end of the twelfth century (around 1200, says Pal Engel).
>This is a fact every blessed Hungarian historian is familiar with. It was
>Bela III who established the royal chancellery. Let me quote an old source,
>the famous Homan-Szekfu History of Hungary, written in the 1930s. Balint
>Homan, the medievalist, wrote this particular volume (I:409-410). This is
>what he has to say about Bela III's court and the establishment of the
>chancellery:
>

I have looked at a large number of documents, before the 1138 date, and as
Eva wrote there are not alrge number extant, so the field was probably well
sampled. Thos were marked as below quoted by Homan as prepost, notary, etc.
but there were earlier than Bela IV times when the document clearly states
"Chancellor". The problem I have, that if not from the extant document, how
would anyone establish when the chancellery practice started. Eva is also
correct that a large amount of research from extant
archives is needed to be able to generalize. Thus it is also quite possible
that Homan or anyone else did see the "chancellor" marking only from Bela
IV, and as the changes in trial rules were made, the number of documents
from Bela IV certainly increased.
For many of these issues there is no absolute independent data available
other than the records themselves. Burocracy has its own momentum, it is
also possible that the ryal chancellor was in existence some time before
Bela IV. When the number of documents due the rule change started to
increase, the chancellor told the boss, I need helpers and a
bigger office and promotion to GS 14. I do have problems with the assumption
that the literacy increased because the number of chancellry written
documents increased.

>        "Az udvartartas kereteinek bovitesevel sor kerult az allando iroda,
>kiralyi kancellaria felallitasara is. II. Istvanig a gyer szamban
>kibocsatott kiralyi okleveleket ad hoc megbizott egyhazi szemelyek, Szent
>Laszlo ota rendszerint udvari kaplanok irtak. II. Bela koraban a kaplanok
>testulete, a kiralyi kapolna mar mint allando iroda mukodik a kapolnaispan
>tisztet viselo fopap vezetese alatt, bar rendszeres kancellariai szervezet
>meg nincsen.

In spite of the availabilty of documents signed as Chancellor? This is
closer to what I have stated, that it ws a stepwise growth, probaly first
resulting in a chancellor and later a chancellery, but all of this before
the 1200s. Can you treat this issue without including Bela III's background?

>A kiralynak a szemelyes torvenykezetol valo fokozatos
>visszavonulasa, a tarsadalmi es gazdasagi viszonyok valtozasa, az okleveles
>bizonyitas eloterbenyomulasa azonban maga utan vonta az irasbeliseg
>behozatalat. III. Bela--1181-ben kiadott oklevelenek tanusaga
>szerint--elrendelte, hogy minden elotte es udvaraban letargyalt ugyrol es
>jogi aktusrol irasos bizonysag, oklevel allittassek ki s e vegbol 1185-ben
>nyugati ertelemben vett allando hivatalt, kancellariat szervezett. Elere
>Parizsban kikepzett jeles udvari papjat, Adorjan budai prepostot nevezte ki
>kancellarnak, kit 1190-ben Katapan fervaris perpost valtotta fel. Adorjan es
>Katapan voltak a magyar kancellariai praxis megalapitoi. A kancellar mellett
>tobb allando ejegyzo, notarius dolgozott."

What I see is  that through Bela II and Bela III the documentation was
increasing (the country was developing and Bela III copied some of the
Byzantine practice) and there are already documents signed as chancellor. By
the time of Bela IV, (again for explanable reason) the office became quite
busy. But please consider whether the continuing explosion of government
officies with their commensurate paperwork have any influence on literacy
today. Changes, even then, were rarely precipitous and the correlation
between a symptom and the cause then, as today, is often misconstrued. But
as an example, the above Homan quote is different from the context and
misses somewhat the time of Engel. How can these be tied to other than the
volume of royal correspondance? Is that a direct correlation to literacy of
the country? There were also edicts issued that the clergy, that even at low
levels had to be literate and the availability of books were the
responsibility of the bishops that may have had a much larger influence than
the chancellery issue.

However, the proliferation of documents (as an example indicated by the 1222
Aranybulla
was not unusual see Section 30 "Es hogy ez a mi engedmenyunk, illetoleg
rendelkezesunk mind a mi idonkben, mind utodaink idejeben orokke ervenyes
legyen, het peldanyban allitattuk ki, es arany pecsetunkkel erositettuk
meg." Poor St. Xerox prepost.)

>        Yes, exactly, the king hollered if he needed someone to pen a
>document, just as you said. In any case, very few documents were written.
>Please, be aware that history is vast and you cannot come up with all sorts
>of suspicions about the ignorance of Pal Engel or anyone else before you
>know exactly what you are talking about. And let me add to this: I myself
>don't have all that information at my fingertips because it is not my field.
>I have to look it up and, believe me, it wouldn't be some kind of collection
>of twelfth-century documents where I would start my search for the date of
>the establishment of the royal chancellery.

I am aware that history is vast. However, the reason I became more and more
intersted in original documents is the consideration that they get by
various general historians.
I am willing to admit that Homan-Szekfu, Gibbon and the Dacian survival
issue started me to check what is actually known and what is surmised by the
authors. Later, I have found that even the translators took extensive
liberties with original texts. The more I read the less satisfied I became
with the general histories and their oft cavallier handling of source data.
It starts with events like discussed above. Homan writes the office of the
Chancellery started with Bela III in 1183, Engel writes that it started in
the 1200s  Just on background basis, I would expect Bela III, because of his
exposure to the heavily bureaucratic Byzantin court, but could I directly
tie this case alone to the literacy in the country? Not easily.

I respect general history books when it is clearly designated what is a
known original source based information, what is from derived sources and
what is the analysis, opinion or conclusion of the author, if alternatives
are also presented, even better. This is, I am sorry to say, is rare. Most
of the time known facts, assumed facts and opinions are presented
intermixed, without clear identification.

Neither am I hungarocentric, but I do get upset when every achievment is
ignored. Here is an example. I have read in numerous tomes (not only in
Hungarian books) about the exemplary curier service of the Mongols, how much
more advanced it was than the "mail"
service in the west. Then I read about laws from Laszlo I time (with
indications that it is a reaffirmation) about the regulation of the curier's
horses. Every village has to make mounts available to them and the abandoned
horse has to be accounted for, etc., and start wondering if the Mongol
system was superior to the western coutries in the XIII century, why does
not someone start stating that there was such service in Hungary 200 years
earlier. Also, what were these curiers carrying, verbal messages only
or written documents? I could go on and on but I am deviating from the issue
and broadening the development question. We'll have to take this in smaller
bites.

Regards,Jeliko

In parting, I wanted to leave some references to those who want to dig
further on several of discussed issues.

1) Italia ed Ungheria. Dieci secoli di rapporti letterari. Budapest, 1967
2) Venezia ed Ungheria nel Rinascimento. Firenze, 1973
3) Rapporti veneto-ungheresi all'epoca Rinascimento. Budapest, 1975
4) Kovach Sandor Istvan "Pannoniabol Europaba" Budapest, 1975
5) Polgar Vilmos "Magyarorszag es a magyarok a XVII szazadi olasz
kozvelemenyben."
   Pannonhalma, 1942
6) Tarday Lajos "Regi hirunk a vilagban." Budapest, 1979
7) Bartoniek Emma " Burgio papai kovet jelentesei" Budapest, 1926
8) Paolo Giovi "Della istorie del suo tempo" Vinegia, 1581 (excerpts only)
9) Barlai O Szabolcs " I sonetti di Michelangelo alla Corte dei Principi di
Transylvania. Ungheria d'oggi." 1966 also Vigilia, 1975, p 755-760
10)Pierre Lescalopier utazasa Erdelybe 1574. ed. Benda Kalman es Tarday Lajos
   Budapest, 1982
11) Barlai O Szabolcs "400 eves francia levelek es konyvszamlak. Batthyany
boldiszar es Jean Aubray baratsaga." MKSz 1977, 156-166.
12) B. Nagy Margit "Varak,kastelyok, udvarhazak," Bukarest, 1973.
13) Biro Vencel "Erdely XVI-XVII szazadi kereskedelmenek tortenetehez" in
Kelemen L.    Emlekkonyv, Kolozsvar 1957 p 64-77.
14) Barlay O Szabolcs "Romon Virag, fejezetek a mohacsi vesz utani
reneszanszrol"
    Budapest, 1986
15) Volume II of Erdely tortenelme.

and others which were given in the various postings relating to the 11700s
postings.

And finally another puzzler (this is becoming another "Car talk").

About whom was the following written by a foreign observer?

"Hianyzott belole a magyaroknal termeszetes katonai vitezseg, minthogy
irodalmi tanulmanyokban kepeztek ki. Nem erejere tamaszkodott, hanem
megfontolt erveire. Ezert volt annyira ovatos es eber az allam ugyeinek
intezeseben."

" The natural military bravery of the Hungarians was missing from him,
because he was trained it literary studies. He was not dependent on force
but on considered reasons.
This is why he was careful and vigilant in dealing with the affairs of state."

The comment is by an Italian and it is not for Matyas.

The answer is coming up in the future. If there is a guessing game while I
am gone after Monday, I would appreciate a volunteer to keep track of the
answers.

Regards,Jeliko.

E-MAIL ADDRESSES OF HISTORIANS OF TURKISH HISTORY AND HOME-PAGES OF
TURKISH HISTORY AND BOOKS ON TURKISH HISTORY

I am  Sauli Ingman from Finland. I am studying history at the university
of Helsinki.  I am  most interested in the relations between Sultan
S|leyman Kanuni, Emperor  Charles the V and his brother Ferdinand Archduke
of Austria, and the German Protestants. My special subject is how Turkey
benefited from the German reformation as the Ottoman empire continued its
expansion  into Europe from 1521 onwards. Do you  know of any book or
article, about  how Turkey benefited from the German reformation, the
German and other Protestants and Martin Luther 1521 - 1683? Moreover, do
you know of any information available on the Internet on the same subject?


I am also interested in the history of Turkey generally.  I would like to
get e-mail addresses of historians  of Turkish history, because I would
like to discuss the history of Turkey with them.

Here is the address of a Turkish history home-page
http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~utktsa/history.html

If you know any other addresses of Turkish history pages
please e-mail your messages directly to me. Thank you.

My e-mail is: 

Yours sincerely

Sauli Ingman

At 02:49 PM 10/18/96 -0400, Jeliko wrote:
>
>I have looked at a large number of documents, before the 1138 date, and as
>Eva wrote there are not alrge number extant, so the field was probably well
>sampled. Thos were marked as below quoted by Homan as prepost, notary, etc.
>but there were earlier than Bela IV times when the document clearly states
>"Chancellor".

        I assume you meant Bela III (1172-1196). Bela IV was the fellow who
was around when the Mongols came (1235-1270).

>The problem I have, that if not from the extant document, how
>would anyone establish when the chancellery practice started.

        My understanding is that there is a document in which Bela III
orders the establishment of the royal chancellery. Also, it is most likely
that we have direct evidence that the first holder of the title, royal
chancellor, was Adorjan and his successor's name is also known.

>I do have problems with the assumption
>that the literacy increased because the number of chancellry written
>documents increased.

        I don't think that this is what our historians, starting with Homan,
say. To paraphrase Homan, at the beginning of Bela III's reign, the king
personally could oversee all the judications which came to his court. He
personally presided over most of the cases. Often under a big oak tree. But
Bela III's reign was a prosperous one, the court became much larger, the
number of office holders grew, the royal court's affairs became much more
complicated and thus it was necessary to keep records. Official records of
the royal edicts. Also judications done by others than the king. Thus, the
necessity of a separate royal office with a chancellor at its head.

        "Literacy" in the sense you use it doesn't mean "irasbeliseg," and
it is perhaps my fault that I didn't explain it well enough, or rather
translated it rather loosely. "Irasbeliseg" is a special word used
specifically in history. According to the Hungarian dictionary it means "Az
irasnak a gyakorlati elet es a muvelodes celjaira valo altalanos
hasznalata." Simply put: "the general use of writing for the purpose of
every-day life and culture." One could add, bureaucracy to this description.
So, it doesn't mean that because we had a chancellery suddenly more people
could read or write, but that writing replaced orality in administration.

>In spite of the availabilty of documents signed as Chancellor? This is
>closer to what I have stated, that it ws a stepwise growth, probaly first
>resulting in a chancellor and later a chancellery, but all of this before
>the 1200s.

        Question #1? Are you reading this documents in the original Latin or
in Hungarian translations? Question #2? Did you realize that it is not
enough to pick up a Latin-English/Hungarian dictionary, for example, when
one is doing research on medieval history. It is not even enough to consult
a general medieval Latin-English/Hungarian dictionary. There is such animal
as Medieval Hungarian Latin/Hungarian Dictionary. That is, Latin used in
Hungary differed in many respects from Latin used in Germany or France, or
England. Well, as far as "kancellar" is concerned "cancellarius" simply
meant "doorman, head of an office." Thus, just because you found a document
signed "cancellarius" it doesn't mean that he was head of the royal
"kancellaria/chancellery. It most likely meant the head of some kind of
office, the office which prepared the document.

>Can you treat this issue without including Bela III's background?

        What do you want me to do? To dwell into every aspect of the whole
reign of Bela III? Of course, Balint Homan talked about the whole reign. I
simply looked up in the Index: kancellaria, establishment of. And I was
directed to volume 1, pages 409-410.

>What I see is  that through Bela II and Bela III the documentation was
>increasing (the country was developing and Bela III copied some of the
>Byzantine practice) and there are already documents signed as chancellor. By
>the time of Bela IV, (again for explanable reason) the office became quite
>busy. But please consider whether the continuing explosion of government
>officies with their commensurate paperwork have any influence on literacy
>today.

        I already pointed out that you misunderstood the word "irasbeliseg."
It is not the same as "irni-olvasni tudas = literacy."

>The more I read the less satisfied I became
>with the general histories and their oft cavallier handling of source data.

        As I said. If you are interested in a specific topic and want to
dwell into it deeply, you don't go to a general history. You go to
monographs. First, you go to bibliographies to find out where you can find
these monographs (which periodicals). I wasn't getting my information on
Hungarian foreign policy in 1919-1920 from general histories either. They
had about one or two sentences on the topic, if I was lucky.


>It starts with events like discussed above. Homan writes the office of the
>Chancellery started with Bela III in 1183, Engel writes that it started in
>the 1200s

        Let me correct you. The establishment of the royal chancellery was
ordered in 1181 and the office itself was established in 1185 and Pal Engel
doesn't say that it was established in the 1200s and Eva Balogh never said,
paraphrasing Engel, that it was established in the 1200s. Engel quoted
Bela's charter of 1181: "Mivel az emberi termeszet fogyatekossaga folytan az
idok mulasaval konnyen belopozik a feledes az elmult dolgok emlekezete,
melto irassal vedelmezni es megerositeni mindazt, amiben a jogi szemelyek
szerzodest kotottek, azert, hogy ez sertetlenul es haboritatlanul
megmaradjon az iras erejevel es alkalmas ferfiak tanubizonysagaval." Ettol
kezdve mutatkoznak surusodo jelei annak, hogy a jogok irasos rogzitese
nemcsak az egyhaz, hanem a vilagiak szamara is szukseglette valt. A reform
eredmenyekent *1200 korul* a szobeliseget felvaltja az irasbeliseg idoszaka,
amelyrol az ismereteink mar osszehasonlithatlanul alaposabbak es
reszletesebbek, mint az Arpad-kor elso ket evszazadarol. A magyar kiralysag
ekkor kezd igazabol betagolodni a kereszteny Europaba." Out of this the only
thing I quoted was that "around 1200" Hungary entered the age of
"irasbeliseg" which, for lack of better English word, I put down as
"irasbeliseg/literacy." Admittedly, it would have been better to simply
describe it as "the use of written records."

        I don't know a thing about St. Laszlo's courier service, but I am
sure there are monographs dealing with this aspect of his laws also. But, of
course, one must keep in mind that not all laws could be applied--they
remained on the book, as we say. With this I don't want to say that
Hungary's courier service was not two hundred years ahead of France's.
Maybe. But I wouldn't jump to conclusions until I knew more about this
question than what St. Laszlo's laws tell us.

        Eva Balogh

Some new and interesting information about British, Irish, Scottish,
American, Australian, NZ, others and Hungarian peoples.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1---The nation called ISRAEL today is really the biblical tribe of JUDAH.

2---The word JEW is a shortening of Judah.

3---The tribe of LEVI (or Levites) are living with the tribe of Judah today.

4---Jacob s name was changed to ISRAEL and Jacob s name passed
onto Joseph s sons Ephraim and Manaseh.

4---The tribe of EPHRAIM is the people in the British Isles.

5---The tribe of MANAHSEH is the people in the United States.

6---The ASSYRIA of the bible is today s Germany.

7---The Coronation Chair that Queen Elizabeth sits on has a stone built
into it.
That stone is the /stone of destiny/  or //Jacob s pillar stone// and is
currently
labeled as such in Westminster Abbey in London, England.

This stone traveled from Judah (Israel) to Ireland, then Scotland, then
England
initially in 569 BC when Jeremiah traveled to Ireland and sometimes referred
to as the patron saint of Ireland.

The discovery and proofs along with all the biblical citations are in a book
called  he United States and Britain in Prophecy - by Herbert W. Armstrong
(formerly of the Worldwide Church of God)
now available from the Philadelphia Church of God.
[PO Box 3700 Edmond, OK 73083 USA]
The Philadelphia Trumpet magazine also has details of these.

BTW: For those who are interested to look at some more history there is
a link between a Hungarian Princess (Margaret) and a Scottish Prince
who married him and became a saint for the Scottish people because
of her extraordinary support and help for the people of Scotland.
There are many references in Scottish history to her.  Possibly many
other relationships exists between the British Peoples (United Kingdom)
and Hungarians.

Moreover, there is also a link between George Washington, the founding
father of the USA,  and the Hungarians.  [Magyar Album - Evanston Univ.]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I hope that you find this interesting and eye-opening and may God allow
you all to learn the truth. Thank you.  Regards to all.

Peter Soltesz

A Pecsi egyetemen van.  Ha valaki ismeri ugy legyen szives
ertesitje ot hogy keresi unokatestvere Chicagobol.
Halas Koszonet,
Csiki Mihaly


http://users.aol.com/MikeC16958/home.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

At 08:16 PM 10/18/96 -0400, Peter Soltesz wrote (after some strange "facts"):

>I hope that you find this interesting and eye-opening and may God allow
>you all to learn the truth.

I wish him the same.

Gabor D. Farkas

At 08:16 PM 10/18/96 -0400, "Peter A. Soltesz" wrote:

>Some new and interesting information about British, Irish, Scottish,
>American, Australian, NZ, others and Hungarian peoples.
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>1---The nation called ISRAEL today is really the biblical tribe of JUDAH.
>
>2---The word JEW is a shortening of Judah.
>
>3---The tribe of LEVI (or Levites) are living with the tribe of Judah today.
>
>4---Jacob s name was changed to ISRAEL and Jacob s name passed
>onto Joseph s sons Ephraim and Manaseh.
>
>4---The tribe of EPHRAIM is the people in the British Isles.
>
>5---The tribe of MANAHSEH is the people in the United States.
>
>6---The ASSYRIA of the bible is today s Germany.
>
>7---The Coronation Chair that Queen Elizabeth sits on has a stone built
>into it.
>That stone is the /stone of destiny/  or //Jacob s pillar stone// and is
>currently
>labeled as such in Westminster Abbey in London, England.
>
>This stone traveled from Judah (Israel) to Ireland, then Scotland, then
>England
>initially in 569 BC when Jeremiah traveled to Ireland and sometimes referred
>to as the patron saint of Ireland.
>
>The discovery and proofs along with all the biblical citations are in a book
>called  he United States and Britain in Prophecy - by Herbert W. Armstrong
>(formerly of the Worldwide Church of God)
>now available from the Philadelphia Church of God.
>[PO Box 3700 Edmond, OK 73083 USA]
>The Philadelphia Trumpet magazine also has details of these.
>
>BTW: For those who are interested to look at some more history there is
>a link between a Hungarian Princess (Margaret) and a Scottish Prince
>who married him and became a saint for the Scottish people because
>of her extraordinary support and help for the people of Scotland.
>There are many references in Scottish history to her.  Possibly many
>other relationships exists between the British Peoples (United Kingdom)
>and Hungarians.
>
>Moreover, there is also a link between George Washington, the founding
>father of the USA,  and the Hungarians.  [Magyar Album - Evanston Univ.]
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>I hope that you find this interesting and eye-opening and may God allow
>you all to learn the truth. Thank you.  Regards to all.
>
>Peter Soltesz

Peter, you're not a ghostwriter for the World Weekly News, the Plain Truth,
Heavy Construction News, or the Amerikai-Magyar Katolikus Munkas es To:ke's,
are you?

Joe Szalai

Lynn Mandel > asked on Oct 16 in HUNGARY #819:

>Any guesses would be appreciated.
>Was there a town in Hungary called "Oyhell"  (phonetic spelling)
>between the years 1867 and 1890?  If so, what is the correct spelling?
>Closest city?
>
>
>
>Thanks
>
>Lynn

>http://pathfinder.com/twep/mysterious_press/hall
>
On the basis of the phonetic spelling the name must be U'jhely. In the
Northeast corner of the present area of Hungary there is a town called
Sa'toraljau'jhely, which the local inhabitants call simply "U'jhely".
Closest city is Miskolc (ca. 50 miles).

George Jalsovszky